Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query administrative and law returned 125 results.

Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to consider using additional terms to narrow it.

	HUMANA INC. V. FORSYTH [Syllabus]
	CITY OF CHICAGO V. INTERN'L COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 522 U.S. 156 (1997) [Syllabus]
	WOODFORD V. NGO [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MEAD CORP. [Syllabus] A Customs ruling letter has no claim to deference under Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, but, under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, it is eligible to claim respect according to its persuasiveness.
	WILKIE V. ROBBINS [Syllabus]
	ASTORIA FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION V. SOLIMINO, 501 U.S. 104 (1991) [Syllabus]
	PRESTON V. FERRER [Syllabus]
	BP AMERICA PRODUCTION CO. V. BURTON [Syllabus]
	GONZALES V. OREGON [Syllabus]
	BUCKLEY V. AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL MARITIME COMM’N V. SOUTH CAROLINAPORTS AUTHORITY [Syllabus] State sovereign immunity bars the Federal Maritime Commission from adjudicating a private party's complaint against a nonconsenting State.
	DARBY V. CISNEROS, 509 U.S. 137 (1993). [Syllabus]
	AGOSTINI V. FELTON, 117 S.CT. 1997, 138 L.ED.2D 391 (1997). [Syllabus]
	MEDTRONIC, INC. V. LOHR ET VIR, 518 U.S. 470 (1996). [Syllabus]
	MARTIN V. OSHRC, 499 U.S. 144 (1991) [Syllabus]
	INS V. ST. CYR [Syllabus] Amendments that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 made to the Immigration and Nationality Act did not affect the federal courts' habeas jurisdiction to decide pure questions of law; nor did they affect the availability of discretionary relief from deportation for aliens whose convictions were obtained through plea agreements before the amendments' effective dates.
	SHALALA V. ILLINOIS COUNCIL ON LONGTERM CARE, INC. [Syllabus] Whether 42 U.S.C. 405H(h), incorporated into the Medicare Act by 42 U.S.C. 1395ii, permits skilled nursing facilities participating in the Medicare program to obtain judicial review under 28 U.S.C.1331 and 1346 (1994 & Supp. II 1996) to challenge the validity of Medicare regulations.
	UNITED STATES DEP'T OF TREASURY V. FABE, 508 U.S. 491 (1993). [Syllabus]
	CLARK V. ROEMER, 500 U.S. 646 (1991) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. TEXAS, 507 U.S. 529 (1993). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. NAVAJO NATION [Syllabus] Under United States v. Mitchell, 445 U. S. 535, and United States v. Mitchell, 463 U. S. 206, the Navajo Tribe's claim for compensation from the Government based on the Interior Secretary's actions with respect to a coal lease between the Tribe and a private lessee fails, for it does not derive from any liability-imposing provision of the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 or its implementing regulations.
	ZADVYDAS V. DAVIS [Syllabus] The post-removal-period detention statute, read in light of the Constitution's demands, implicitly limits an alien's detention to a period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien's removal from the United States, and does not permit indefinite detention; the application of that limitation is subject to federal court review.
	EGELHOFF V. EGELHOFF [Syllabus] The Washington statute that provides that the designation of a spouse as the beneficiary of a nonprobate asset is revoked automatically upon divorce has a connection with ERISA plans and is therefore expressly pre-empted by ERISA.
	INTEL CORP. V. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. [Syllabus]
	ALASKA DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTALCONSERVATION V. EPA [Syllabus] Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in upholding the EPA's assertion of authority to second-guess a permitting decision made by the State of Alaska--which had been delegated permitting authority under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.--in conflict with decisions of this Court and other federal courts of appeals establishing the division of federal-state jurisdiction under the Act and similar statutory programs.
	PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORP. V. THE LTV CORP., 496 U.S. 633 (1990) [Syllabus]
	WINKELMAN V. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DIST. [Syllabus]
	SIMS V. APFEL [Syllabus] May a federal court, without any statutory or regulatory authority in support thereof, and contrary to the informal non-adversarial nature of the Social Security administrative appeal process, impose an ''issue exhaistion"" requirement upon Social Security claimants in federal court to bar issues that were not specifically raised by the claimant during the administrative appeal process."
	AMERICAN INS. ASSN. V. GARAMENDI [Syllabus] California's Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act (HVIRA) requires California insurers to provide extensive information regarding every insurance policy issued in Nazi dominated Europe between 1920 and 1945 by any insurer with which the California insurer now has a legal relationship. The district court enjoined enforcement of the Act on three constitutional grounds: interference with the federal government's power over foreign affairs, due process, and the Foreign Commerce Clause. Over the objections of the U.S. government and affected foreign governments, and in direct conflict with Gerling Global Reinsurance Corp. v. Gallagher, 267 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2001), the Ninth Circuit reversed and upheld the HVIRA in all respects. 1. Whether the HVIRA, which the U.S. government has called an actual interference with U.S. foreign policy, and which affected foreign governments have protested as inconsistent with international agreements, violates the foreign affairs doctrine of Zschering v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 (1968). 2. Whether the HVIRA, which attempts to regulate insurance transactions that occurred overseas between foreign parties more than half a century ago, exceeds California's legislative jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause. 3. Whether the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. 1011-1015, insulates the HVIRA form review under the Foreign Commerce Clause.
	RAYMOND B. YATES, M.D., P.C. PROFIT SHARINGPLAN V. HENDON [Syllabus] Whether the working owner of a business (here, the sole shareholder of a corporate employer) is precluded from being a "participant" under Section 3(7) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1002(7), in an ERISA plan?
	CUYAHOGA FALLS V. BUCKEYE COMMUNITYHOPE FOUNDATION [Syllabus] Respondents have presented no genuine issues of material fact with regard to whether Cuyahoga Falls violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses by submitting to voters a facially neutral referendum petition calling for the repeal of a municipal ordinance authorizing construction of a low-income housing complex.
	LINCOLN V. VIGIL, 508 U.S. 182 (1993). [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. TICOR TITLE INS., 504 U.S. 621 (1992). [Syllabus]
	CITIZENS BANK OF MARYLAND V. STRUMPF, 516 U.S. 16 (1995). [Syllabus]
	MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N [Syllabus]
	PUD NO. 1 OF JEFFERSON COUNTY V. WASHINGTON DEP'T OF ECOLOGY, 511 U.S. 700 (1994) [Syllabus]
	ANTOINE V. BYERS & ANDERSON, INC., 508 U.S. 429 (1993). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. HAGGAR APPAREL CO. [Syllabus]
	SCHAFFER V. WEAST [Syllabus]
	HUBBARD V. UNITED STATES, 514 U.S. 695 (1995). [Syllabus]
	NEW YORK STATE CONFERENCE OF BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD PLANS V. TRAVELERS, 514 U.S. 645 (1995) [Syllabus]
	PORTER V. NUSSLE [Syllabus] The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995's exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege corrections officers' use of excessive force or some other wrong.
	WEST V. GIBSON [Syllabus]
	BRAGDON V. ABBOTT, 524 U.S. 624 (1998) [Syllabus]
	CITY OF LITTLETON V. Z. J. GIFTS D—4, L. L. C. [Syllabus] Whether the requirement of prompt judicial review imposed by FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990), entails a prompt judicial determination or a prompt commencement of judicial proceedings?
	LUJAN V. NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, 497 U.S. 871 (1990) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES JAMES DANIEL GOOD REAL PROPERTY, 510 U.S. 43 (1993). [Syllabus]
	WASHINGTON STATE DEPT. OF SOCIAL AND HEALTHSERVS. V. GUARDIANSHIP ESTATE OF KEFFELER [Syllabus] Washington State's use of respondent foster children's Social Security benefits to reimburse the State for expenses in caring for respondents did not violate 42 U. S. C. §407(a).
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES DEP'T OF JUSTICE V. LANDANO, 508 U.S. 165 (1993). [Syllabus]
	BE&K CONSTR. CO. V. NLRB [Syllabus] Respondent National Labor Relations Board lacked authority to find that petitioner violated federal labor law by prosecuting against respondent unions an unsuccessful lawsuit with a retaliatory motive.
	BUCKLEY V. FITZSIMMONS, 509 U.S. 259 (1993). [Syllabus]
	DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, DOL V. GREENWICH COLLIERIES, 512 U.S. 267 (1994) [Syllabus]
	CORRECTIONAL SERVICES CORP. V. MALESKO [Syllabus] The limited holding in Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, may not be extended to confer a right of action for damages against private entities acting under color of federal law.
	LUNDING V. NEW YORK TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL, 522 U.S. 287 (1998) [Syllabus]
	REGIONS HOSPITAL V. SHALALA, 522 U.S. 448 (1998) [Syllabus]
	CEDAR RAPIDS COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIST. V.GARRET F. [Syllabus]
	BOGAN V. SCOTT-HARRIS, 523 U.S. 44 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES SHOE CORP., 523 U.S. 360 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. IDAHO EX REL. DIR., IDAHO DEP'T OF WATER RESOURCES, 508 U.S. 1 (1993) [Syllabus]
	LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. V.PSKS, INC. [Syllabus]
	COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE V. MCLAUGHLIN, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) [Syllabus]
	CLINTON V. GOLDSMITH [Syllabus]
	ALEXANDER V. SANDOVAL [Syllabus] There is no private right of action to enforce disparate-impact regulations promulgated under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
	AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC. V. WINDSOR, 117 S.CT. 2231, 138 L.ED.2D 689 (1997). [Syllabus]
	OHIO V. AKRON CENTER, 497 U.S. 502 (1990) [Syllabus]
	VIRGINIA V. MARYLAND [Syllabus]
	BLACK & DECKER DISABILITY PLAN V. NORD [Syllabus] Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that an ERISA disability plan administrator's determination of disability is subject to the treating physician rule and, therefore, the plan administrator is required to accept a treating physician's opinion of disability as controlling unless the plan administrator rebuts that opinion in writing based upon substantial evidence on the record.
	BARNHART V. THOMAS [Syllabus] Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act define disability as the inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months. 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act further provides that a claimant shall be determined to be under a disability only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(2)(A); 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(B). Under the Act, work which exists in the national economy means work which exists in significant numbers either in the region where such individual lives or in several regions in the country. 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(2)(A); 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(B). The question presented is: Whether the Commissioner of Social Security may determine that a claimant is not disabled within the meaning of the Act because the claimant remains physically and mentally able to do her previous work, without considering whether that particular job exists in significant numbers in the national economy.
	COMMISSIONER V. BANKS [Syllabus]
	KRAFT GEN. FOODS V. IOWA DEP'T OF REVENUE & FINANCE, 505 U.S. 71 (1992). [Syllabus]
	FMC CORP. V. HOLLIDAY, 498 U.S. 52 (1990) [Syllabus]
	REITER V. COOPER, 507 U.S. 258 (1993). [Syllabus]
	ALLENTOWN MACK SALES AND SERVICE, INC. V. NLRB, 522 U.S. 359 (1998) [Syllabus]
	CHEVRON U.S. A. INC. V. ECHAZABAL [Syllabus] The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 permits an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulation authorizing an employer to refuse to hire a disabled individual because his performance on the job would endanger his own health.
	ARIZONA DEPT. OF REVENUE V. BLAZE CONSTR. CO. [Syllabus]
	PRIMATE PROTECTION LEAGUE V. TULANE ED. FUND, 500 U.S. 72 (1991) [Syllabus]
	SINOCHEM INT L CO. V. MALAYSIA INT L SHIPPINGCORP. [Syllabus]
	NEW HAMPSHIRE V. MAINE [Syllabus]
	COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC. V. AVIALL SERVICES, INC. [Syllabus]
	CITY NEWS & NOVELTY, INC. V. WAUKESHA [Syllabus] Is a licensing scheme which acts as a prior restraint required to contain explicit language which prevents injury to a speaker's rights from want of a prompt judicial decision?"
	STONE V. INS, 514 U.S. 386 (1995). [Syllabus]
	HOFFMAN PLASTIC COMPOUNDS, INC. V. NLRB [Syllabus] Federal immigration policy, as expressed in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, foreclosed the National Labor Relations Board from awarding backpay to an undocumented alien who was never legally authorized to work in the United States.
	INS V. AGUIRRE-AGUIRRE [Syllabus]
	INGALLS SHIPBUILDING, INC. V. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, 519 U.S. 248 (1997) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. CLEVELAND INDIANSBASEBALL CO. [Syllabus] Back wages are subject to FICA and FUTA taxes by reference to the year the wages are in fact paid.
	POSTAL SERVICE V. GREGORY [Syllabus] The Merit Systems Protection Board may review independently prior disciplinary actions pending in grievance proceedings when reviewing termination and other serious disciplinary actions.
	AUER V. ROBBINS, 519 U.S. 452 (1997). [Syllabus]
	CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLA. V. LEAVITT [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL PARK HOSPITALITY ASSN. V.DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR [Syllabus] Whether the Contract Disputed Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. 601-613, applies to contracts between the National Park Service and private parties for the development, operation, and maintenance of concessions, such as restaurants, lodges, and gift shops, in the national parks.
	NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMIN. V. FIRST NAT. BANK & TRUST CO., 522 U.S. 479 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BEAN [Syllabus] The absence of an actual denial by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms of a felon's petition for relief from firearms disabilities precludes judicial review under 18 U. S. C. §925(c).
	OREGON WASTE SYS. V. DEPARTMENT OF ENVTL. QUALITY OF ORE., 511 U.S. 93 (1994). [Syllabus]
	BABBITT, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR V. YOUPEE, 519 U.S. 234 (1997). [Syllabus]
	NLRB V. HEALTH CARE & RETIREMENT CORP., 114 S. CT. 1778, 128 L. ED. 2D 586 (1994) [Syllabus]
	NASA V. FLRA [Syllabus]
	METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FCC, 497 U.S. 547 (1990) [Syllabus]
	ARKANSAS V. FARM CREDIT SERVICES OF CENTRAL ARKANSAS, 520 U.S. 821 (1997) [Syllabus]
	FORSYTH COUNTY, GA. V. NATIONALIST MOVEMENT, 505 U.S. 123 (1992). [Syllabus]
	ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	SHALALA V. GUERNSEY MEMORIAL HOSP., 514 U.S. 87 (1995). [Syllabus]
	GRATZ V. BOLLINGER [Syllabus] 1. Does the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.2000d), or 42 U.S.C. 1981?
	CHENEY V. UNITED STATES DIST. COURT FOR D. C. [Syllabus] (1) Whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 1, §§ 1 et seq., can be construed, consistent with the Constitution, principles of separation of powers, and this Court's decisions governing judicial review of Executive Branch actions, to authorize broad discovery of the process by which the Vice President and other senior advisors gathered information to advise the President on important national policy matters, based solely on an unsupported allegation in a complaint that the advisory group was not constituted as the President expressly directed and the advisory group itself reported? (2) Whether the court of appeals had mandamus or appellate jurisdiction to review the district court's unprecedented discovery orders in this litigation?
	LEBRON V. NATIONAL R.R. PASSENGER CORP., 513 U.S. 374 (1995). [Syllabus]
	FCC V. NEXTWAVE PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS INC. [Syllabus] Section 525 of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits the Federal Communications Commission from revoking licenses held by a bankruptcy debtor upon the debtor's failure to make timely payments to the FCC for purchase of the licenses.
	GILMER V. INTERSTATE/JOHNSON LANE CORP., 500 U.S. 20 (1991) [Syllabus]
	BATH IRON WORKS V. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, 506 [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. UNITED FOODS, INC. [Syllabus] The Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act's requirement that fresh mushroom handlers pay assessments used primarily to fund advertising promoting mushroom sales violates the First Amendment.
	ABF FREIGHT SYS. V. NLRB, 510 U.S. 317 (1994). [Syllabus]
	HEIN V. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC. [Syllabus]
	CHAO V. MALLARD BAY DRILLING, INC. [Syllabus] The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's jurisdiction to issue citations to respondent barge owner was not pre-empted by the Coast Guard under §4(b)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970; and the barge in question was a "workplace" covered by the Act.
	ESTATE OF COWART V. NICKLOS DRILLING, 505 U.S. 469 (1992). [Syllabus]
	NORTON V. SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS ALLIANCE [Syllabus] Whether the authority of the federal courts under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 706(1), to "compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed" extends to the review of the adequacy of an agency's ongoing management of public lands under general statutory standards and its own land use plans?
	METROPOLITAN STEVEDORE CO. V. RAMBO, 515 U.S. 291 (1995). [Syllabus]
	METROPOLITAN STEVEDORE CO. V. RAMBO, 117 S.CT. 1953, 138 L.ED.2D 327 (1997). [Syllabus]
	O'GILVIE MINORS V. UNITED STATES, 519 U.S. 79 (1996) [Syllabus]
	UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 751 V. BROWN GROUP, INC., 517 U.S. 544 (1996) [Syllabus]
	BLESSING V. FREESTONE, 520 U.S. 329 (1997) [Syllabus]
	LYNCE V. MATHIS, 519 U.S. 443 (1997) [Syllabus]
	DICKINSON V. ZURKO [Syllabus]
	MORSE V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF VIRGINIA, 517 U.S. 186 (1996). [Syllabus]
	GEORGIA V. ASHCROFT [Syllabus] 1. Whether Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act Requires the Drawing of Safe Majority-Minority Districts with Super majority Minority Populations, Rather than Districts that Afford Minorities Equal Opportunities at Success? 2. Whether Section 5 can be Constitutionally Construed to require the Drawing of Supermajority Minority Legislative Districts in Order to Create Safe Seats, Rather than Seats that Afford Minorities Equal Opportunities at Success? 3. Whether Private Parties Should be Allowed to Intervene in a Section 5 Preclearance Action and Assume the Role and Authority of the Attorney General.
	BENNETT V. SPEAR, 520 U.S. 154 (1997). [Syllabus]
	550 U. S. ____ (2007) [Syllabus]
	CALIFORNIA DENTAL ASSN. V. FTC [Syllabus]